Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:Humans.

--A

Every day, I wake up and ask myself, "Yesterday, did I have a little more of my Humanity than I do today?"

If the answer is, "Yes," then Yesterday was a good day.

Edit: Bolded edits.

Hmmm....I suspect humanity can be over-rated. Nasty things sometimes, humans. I mean, we use the word quite glibly, but can we define it?

--A

Virtue.

Really? Everything with virtue is human? And everything without it is inhuman? And virtue is?

--A

In the Greek it is more properly called ἠθικὴ ἀρετή (ēthikē aretē).
It is "habitual excellence". It is something practiced at all times.
The virtue of perseverance is needed for all and any virtue... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue


Virtue is undoubtedly inhuman in it's origins, but very specific to in regard to humanity itself. The purest form of Virtue also happens to be Man in his purest form. It is a form that cannot be obtained in any other manner, and there is no other form worthy of our being. Virtue is the answer to every problem that has faced humanity then, now and forever.

But you appear to assume that virtue is an absolute. In fact, you specifically say that it's origin is outside of man.

I disagree of course. I think that we invented it ourself, and that it is different depending on who we are. So effectively, aren't you suggesting that only what you believe virtuous is?

(I might split this into the Close if people participate.)

--A

Virtue can mean different things to different people, but it must be free of that which is not virtuous. the rule of absolutism must be applied in any definition to which it cannot include anything that cannot be regarded as virtuous.

Good.

pure and simple....

But that which is not virtuous must be different to different people as well.

--A

sure. thats the problem, innit? but if every person were born and raised as virtuous beings by beings who were born and raised by virtuous beings......you get the idea. but "non-virtuous" virtues can be easily divulged by rigorous application of other virtues. an example would be a person who wanted to be king so he could rule all the land and take care of everyone in the most resplendent manner so everyone would be happy, healthy and safe, leading the most wonderful lives in peace and harmony. his principal vice would be wanting to be king.

Haha, but my point is who gets to decide what is virtuous? What if something you don't consider virtuous was one of the principles by which people were raised?

In other words, who is right about what is virtuous?

--A

the definition would be the one no-one can disagree on....

Don't hold your breath my friend.

--A

no worries

I'm too busy holding my ground!

Gotta watch out for being carpèd huh?

--A

funny I'd find a column on this subject on this day.....

• The Virtue of Intolerance
  July 12, 2007

• The notion of tolerance has the connotation of holding the moral high ground, of being an act of virtue that needs no explanation and no substantiation, of requiring no insight into the context of that which is being tolerated.
  
  The popular view seems to be that tolerance is unarguably a good thing – the implication being that to be intolerant is to be a tyrant.
  
  The notion of tolerance comes in a package deal bundled with other corrupted concepts like diversity, multiculturalism, extremism, moral complexities, subjectivist grayness, etc. The problem with all of these is that their essential defining characteristics are removed from any context that make them meaningful.
  
  For example, “extremism” or to be an “extremist” is de facto an undesirable quality; its essential characteristic of holding one position to the utter exclusion of the other is divorced from the context of what the positions actually entail and why would that exclusive position be wrong.
  
  However, the concept of tolerance suffers from an added unique distortion. Not only is the concept usually divorced from any particular context and is enshrined as an unquestioning companion of benevolence, tolerance is always used in the acquiescence of the bad and in compromise of the good.
  
  Notice how the good, the true, or the rational never requires toleration, it is only the opposite of these that do. No one ever tolerates the good while simultaneously identifying it as the good. However, the contradiction implied in the phrase “tolerating the good” escapes most people.
  
  When one is asked to “tolerate differences of opinion” or “diversity” one is implicitly branding the differences of opinion and diversity as bad. This not only corrupts the meaning of the concept “tolerance” by misusing it but also paints a broad brush over the concepts of diversity and opinion. If by rational and objective judgment, the opinions are valid and the diversity of people beneficial, then the question of tolerance simply does not arise. With regard to the good that is objectively identified, there is (and properly cannot be) any need for tolerance.
  
  However, when a racist spouts hatred, I have the moral high ground in not tolerating his views and explicitly condemning him for it. To tolerate racist views is to betray your commitment to reason and justice. To tolerate evil is to shortchange on your commitment to the good. Ask yourself why would you need to ever tolerate something that was good and rational anyway? Then, why are you asked to tolerate the irrational, the untrue, the dishonest, and the evil? What virtue lies in tolerating these, and by what standard is it a virtue?
  
  A virtue is that which you do to gain and keep your values. If you hold that the defense of your values (the act of keeping and protecting your values) is your moral obligation, then the condemnation and refusal to tolerate those that go against your values or directly threaten your values is merely a corollary of the same moral obligation. Intolerance is then a virtue when practiced in safeguarding your values.
  
  Intolerance does not mean resorting to violence or the violation of rights but a clear and firm statement of denunciation, a condemnation of the immoral action or speech, a refusal to sanction and endorse, and a commitment to not cooperate.
  
  • This author writes from Mumbai, India under the pseudonym "Ergo." Ergo is an editor by profession, and writes regularly on his personal blog on a variety of topics from a philosophical perspective. Ergo adheres to the philosophical system of Objectivism--a system built by Ayn Rand--and explicitly champions reason, liberty, individualism, self-esteem, and rational self-interest.

I don't agree with this, and believe this mentality goes a long way to explain our current socio-political conditions today....from Bush to Bin Laden, and all the rest.....

Notice how the good, the true, or the rational never requires toleration, it is only the opposite of these that do.

Yes, it works out so well when everything you disagree with happens to be bad and false and illogical, too.

Just to move things along: Is being aggressive a Virtue or a Vice? In the last 20 or so years, I would argue that it has been treated almost exclusively as a vice - something to be tolerated, or bemoaned - just as Honor is treated as a quaint antiquity, and Bravery is given no outlet.

Yet these things are, to my reasoning, virtues.

Aggression is almost always an avenue for selfishness. When do you think it would be virtuous?

Assertiveness can nearly always be virtuous, aggression nearly never is.

Aggression is a tough word - technically, it is associated with being aggressive, but the connotations that have attached themselves give it - and the idea of being aggressive - a much more negative meaning than the latter deserves.

Aggression (being aggressive) is the virtue that gets things done. Whether or not those things are worthy goals is a separate issue altogether.

You can assert yourself all you like, but all you'll accomplish is making sure that everyone knows what you think should be done.

You can feel Compassion and Mercy for the downtrodden, but to get them some Justice, you're going to have to get Aggressive. Honor rarely finds outlet without some action, and only the Courage to quietly endure finds expression without becoming Aggressive.